Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable

supply chains: a systematic literature review

Elcio M. Tachizawa
Department of Business Administrations, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Getafe, Spain, and
Chee Yew Wong
Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive framework that synthesizes approaches and contingency variables to manage
the sustainability of multi-tier supply chains and sub-suppliers.
Design/methodology/approach Using a systematic literature review, the authors analyse 39 studies and relevant theories to develop a
comprehensive framework that integrates research efforts so far.
Findings The authors build a conceptual framework that incorporates four approaches to manage the sustainability of multi-tier supply chains.
They also identify several contingency variables (e.g. power, dependency, distance, industry, knowledge resources) and their effect on the proposed
approaches.
Research limitations/implications Based on the framework, six research propositions that advance the theories on multi-tier supply chain
management, allow lead firms to develop comprehensive sustainable supply chain strategies and set the ground for future research in the area were
developed.
Originality/value This study provides a novel framework for studying sustainability in multi-tier supply chains that goes beyond the single-tier
perspective and incorporates the extended supply chain.
Keywords Environment, Suppliers, Sustainable supply chains, Social factors, Literature
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction et al., 2012). Actually, the most serious environmental and

social issues in the supply chain are often generated by
Recently, big firms have started to realize that managing the
suppliers located in the second tier or further upstream, also
sustainability of first-tier suppliers may not be enough. Even
referred to as lower-tier suppliers (Ernst and Kim, 2002), or
though a focal firm may have little control over its suppliers
sub-suppliers (Grimm et al., 2011). For example, NGOs such
unsustainable behaviour, consumers are still likely to attribute
as Greenpeace have accused famous high-street clothing
responsibility to the focal or lead firm (Hartmann and
retailers of allowing their suppliers and suppliers suppliers to
Moeller, 2014). Consequently, many big firms are finding new
discharge hazardous chemicals into major rivers in China
ways of managing the multi-tier supply chains to reduce such
(Greenpeace, 2011). Firms such as Nike and Wal-Mart are
chain liabilities (Hartmann and Moeller, 2014). For example,
developing new partnership strategies specifically designed to
Puma is including up to the fourth tier of suppliers in its
lower-tier suppliers (Plambeck and Denend, 2011). Finally, it
sustainability reports, and Nike is monitoring hundreds of
is estimated that up to 90 per cent of greenhouse gases
second-tier suppliers (from leather to zipper producers) to its
emissions could be generated by lower-tier suppliers
contract footwear and apparel factories (Lee et al., 2012b).
(Plambeck, 2012). This puts in doubt the real impact of low
Although there has been considerable research on
emission targets and other sustainability initiatives taken
sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), there is
recently by many firms.
predominantly a focus on first-tier suppliers (Lee, 2008;
Nevertheless, lower-tier suppliers possess some
Walker and Jones, 2012). However, globalization and the
characteristics that make it complicated for lead firms to
fragmentation of supply chains, together with increasing
manage their sustainability. First, lower-tier suppliers are the
stakeholder pressure to increase transparency and
suppliers about whom buyers have less information (Choi and
accountability, have raised concerns about the impact of
Hong, 2002). Second, lead firms do not have enough
second- and third-tier suppliers on sustainability (Miemczyk
influence over lower-tier suppliers. For instance, even
dominant buyers (e.g. Wal-Mart, Nike) represent only a small
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at percentage of the business of a lower-tier supplier (Plambeck,
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm 2012). Third, lower-tier suppliers tend to be less susceptible
to environmental pressure from society, because they are often
small and medium enterprises (SMEs), not well-known to the

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

19/5/6 (2014) 643663 Received 13 February 2014
Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] Revised 15 July 2014
[DOI 10.1108/SCM-02-2014-0070] Accepted 19 July 2014

643
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
general public (Lee et al., 2012b), and located in countries
where environmental and social regulations are less
demanding (Esty and Winston, 2006). Finally, lower-tier
suppliers tend to have a more unstable relationship with the
rest of the supply chain, because they can be changed easily
(Ponce and Prida, 2004). Surprisingly, despite the importance
of the subject, literature on this issue still lacks conceptual
frameworks. This is the main motivation for this paper.
To address the above issues, this paper reviews 39 studies
and relevant theories and develops a theoretical framework of
multi-tier SSCM. The paper has two major objectives: first, to
identify the governance mechanisms used for managing the
sustainability of lower-tier suppliers. While monitoring and
collaboration are two widely known mechanisms for managing
first-tier suppliers (Rao, 2002; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Vachon
and Klassen, 2006), this paper attempts to identify and
conceptualize more complex governance mechanisms.
Second, this paper aims to identify the contingency variables
behind the adoption and effectiveness of such governance
mechanisms, i.e. the context under which some of these
practices are more effective than others (Sousa and Voss,
2008).
The theoretical contributions of this paper are threefold:
first, it responds to the call for future studies which focus
beyond simple one-tier buyerseller relationships (Abbasi and
Nilsson, 2012; Sarkis, 2012; Mena et al., 2013). Second, while
the studies of triads buyersuppliersupplier (Wilhelm, 2011;
Choi and Wu, 2009) and supplier buyer customer
relationships (Mena et al., 2013) focus largely on relational
factors, this paper extends the existing literature, as it focuses
on governance mechanisms, practices and contingency factors
which affect such relationships. Third, the paper advances the
multi-tier supply chain management (SCM) theory (Meixell
and Gargeya, 2005; Mena et al., 2013) by adding the context
of sustainability. Accordingly, inspired by the seminal paper
by Lambert et al. (1998), this paper identifies theories for
explaining the management of different tiers in a supply chain
with respect to environmental issues.
The paper is structured as follows: first, we show the results
of the systematic literature review. Then, we relate these
findings to the main organizational theories applied to SSCM,
setting a conceptual framework. After this, we present some
research propositions based on this framework. Finally, we
discuss research and managerial implications, present some
limitations of the study and propose further research lines.
Method
The literature related to lower-tier suppliers is sparse and
encompasses several concepts originated from different areas
(e.g. SCM, inter-organizational networks, corporate social
responsibility, etc.). Therefore, there is a need for a more
structured and broader analysis of the related literature. Thus,
we decided to apply a systematic literature review
methodology (Tranfield et al., 2003; Denyer and Tranfield,
2009). Based on our research motivations, we propose the
following research questions to our study:
RQ1. Which practices do lead firms use to manage the
sustainability of lower-tier suppliers?
644
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
RQ2. Related to these practices, what should their respective
governance mechanisms look like?
RQ3. Which are the contingency variables that explain the
governance mechanisms used by lead firms to manage
the sustainability of lower-tier suppliers?
The next step was to define which search engine and search
strings to use. After consultation with several database experts,
two search engines were chosen, because of their broad and
multidisciplinary scope: ABI Inform ProQuest and EBSCO
Host.
The search string had to be sufficiently broad to include all
papers that answered the research questions and, at the same
time, narrow enough to allow for a careful examination of their
applicability to the study. Therefore, we used a search string
that encompassed simultaneously three categories of
keywords:
1 keywords related to Green/Sustainability/Environmental/
Social/Corporate Responsibility;
2 keywords related to Supply Chain Management/
Purchasing/Procurement; and
3 keywords related to Lower-tiers/networks.
Therefore, the search string used was as follows: ab(green OR
environment OR eco OR sustainab OR social) AND
ab(suppl OR purchasing OR procurement) AND
ab(sub-supplier OR second-tier supplier OR subcontractor
OR tier-n supplier OR suppliers supplier OR extended supply
chain OR tier OR network)
This procedure searched the keywords within the title and
abstract, and the time frame for the articles was between
January 1976 and June 2014. Given the considerable amount
of material on this category, we also included
non-peer-reviewed articles published in high-reputation
management reviews. According to Sarkis (2012), emergent
research in this area may also appear in books and conference
papers. Therefore, we included some references on these
categories that provided a clear contribution to the study. The
search generated 2,120 items. The items were submitted to a
preliminary screening, where we eliminated papers that were
duplicated and dropped items that did not have a managerial
focus. We retrieved 681 items after this stage. Then, we
performed an abstract analysis, where we only kept the items
that had, simultaneously, a multi-tier perspective and a
sustainability focus. We kept 114 items after this step. Finally,
we performed a full paper analysis, examining if the papers
contributed to answer at least one of the proposed research
questions. More precisely, we verified if empirical results
identified practices, governance mechanisms or contingency
variables associated to the management of the sustainability of
lower-tier suppliers. As a result, 39 items were considered for
analysis. A schematic view of the screening methodology is
depicted in Figure 1.
Each item was analysed and coded to facilitate its synthesis.
First, a coding scheme was developed through two cycles of
pilot coding and evaluation. More specifically, draft coding
categories were applied to sample data by two independent
researchers. Then, there was a discussion of issues that
occurred, and the coding scheme was adjusted if necessary.
This procedure assured inter-coder reliability, e.g. the amount
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Figure 1 Screening methodology
2,120 681 114
Initial items Preliminary items Abstract items
search screening analysis
- Apply search string - Management focus - Multi-er perspecve
- ABI-INFORM/PROQUEST - Eliminate duplicates - Sustainability
- EBSCO
of correspondence among two or more coders (Weber, 1990).
Validity (i.e. the extent to which it represents what the
researcher intends to measure) was assured by theory-based
coding schemes (Potter and Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). After
this, the items were classified according to the content
categories by two researchers, and results were analysed
quantitatively. Potential discrepancies were resolved by
discussion. The items were categorized according to the
following variables: year, journal, sustainability focus
(environmental, social or both), methodology (empirical vs
theoretical, qualitative vs quantitative), governing practices
and contingency variables. The results of the analysis are
presented in the following pages.
Descriptive results
A list of the 39 selected items is depicted in Table I. Moreover,
in Table III, we relate a list of relevant organizational theories
and their relationships with the approaches proposed to
manage the sustainability of lower-tier suppliers.
The 39 papers were published between 2000 and 2014,
with the majority (59 per cent) after 2011. This indicates that
this issue has acquired a very recent relevance. With respect to
the research method, we observe a predominance of empirical
(69 per cent) over theoretical papers (31 per cent), and
qualitative (62 per cent) over quantitative (38 per cent)
papers. This suggests that this research line is in an
intermediary stage of development. The distribution of the
articles across journals is very equilibrated, with no journal
being responsible for more than three papers, indicating that
the subject has attracted the interest of several fields of
knowledge. Finally, with respect to the scope, the majority of
the papers (59 per cent) focus on environmental issues, with a
small percentage (11 per cent) focusing on social issues
(Figure 2). This is in line with previous studies (Ashby et al.,
2012; Miemczyk et al., 2012; Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012).
Theoretical background
In this section we review some theoretical frameworks that
have been used to investigate multi-tier SCM. SCM literature
has analysed sustainability practices mainly through dyadic
relationships with first-tier suppliers (Vachon and Klassen,
2006) or triadic relationships with buyer and two first-tier
suppliers (Wilhelm, 2011). Alternatively, Mena et al. (2013)
have analysed a triadic structure composed of buyer, first-tier
suppliers and second-tier suppliers. In parallel, researchers
have relied on network perspectives, e.g. inter-firm networks
(Gassenheimer et al., 2007; Galaskiewicz, 2011) and supply
networks (Harland et al., 2001; Lamming et al., 2000).
However, organizational theories are necessary to
understand the mechanisms involved in complex interactions
within multi-tier supply chains (Sarkis et al., 2011), e.g. social
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
embeddedness (Choi and Kim, 2008) and balance theory
(Choi and Wu, 2009). Alternatively, social network theory
39
Full items argues that the performance of a firm depends on the structure
paper
of the extended supply network in which it is embedded
- Does it t our
research quesons?
(Johnston and Linton, 2000; Crespin-Mazet and Dontenwill,
2012; MacCarthy and Jayarathne, 2012). Similarly, systems
theory argues that the component part of a system can be best
understood in the context of relationships with other systems
rather than in isolation (Checkland and Holwell, 1997).
Finally, complexity theory claims that, as system complexity
(i.e. the number of elements and the degree to which these
elements are differentiated) increases, it becomes more
difficult to determine its performance outcomes (Crozier and
Thoenig, 1976) and firms find it more difficult to plan and
predict their organizational actions (Sarkis et al., 2011).
Network studies integrate systems theory and complexity
within the concept of complex adaptive supply networks (Choi
et al., 2001; Choi and Hong, 2002; Surana et al., 2005; Pathak
et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2011), which are characterized by an
evolving structure and functions, and the dynamic complexity
of their entities (Li et al., 2010).
In parallel, the relational view helps explain how
inter-organizational relationships within the supply chain can
be a source of competitive advantage, by facilitating access to
critical network resources (Dyer and Singh, 1998).
Additionally, resource dependency theory claims that firms
cannot be self-sufficient with regard to strategically critical
resources (e.g. standards, procedures, technologies, material
sources, distribution channels) and thus need to collaborate
with suppliers (Chang et al., 2012; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004;
Cheng, 2011).
Transaction costs economics (Williamson, 1981) helps
explain governance structures within networks (Zaheer et al.,
2000; Cheng and Sheu, 2012), and has been used to
investigate the effectiveness of codes of conduct (Ciliberti
et al., 2009), inter-organizational performance improvement
(Simpson et al., 2007) or trust within the supply chain (Barney
and Hansen, 1994). Additionally, several authors have applied
information asymmetry, satisficing and dynamic signalling to
the sustainability in supply chains (Jiang and Bansal, 2003;
Gonzlez et al., 2008; Sarkis et al., 2011; Wittstruck et al.,
2012).
Alternatively, a few studies (Carter and Rogers, 2008) have
relied on agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) to explain
incentive mechanisms that support SSCM implementation.
Finally, Sarkis et al. (2011) suggest that path dependence can
explain the implementation of SSCM as a self-reinforcing
mechanism dependent on initial conditions. All these
theoretical developments highlight the importance of adopting
a multi-tier perspective in SSCM studies, and some of the
conceptual complexities which are involved. In particular,
there is a lack of specific research frameworks to analyse this
issue. This is the focus of the next section.
Multi-tier SSCM research framework
In Figure 3, we propose a research framework to our study.
We now explain the main components of the research
framework.
645
 Table I Multi-tier SSCM research sample
Study
Koh et al. (2012)
Awaysheh and Klassen
(2010)
Alvarez et al. (2010)
Ciliberti et al. (2009)
Mena et al. (2013)
646
Zhu et al. (2012)
Zhu et al. (2008)
Plambeck and Denend
(2011)
Social or Type of
Main theory and contribution environment-focused study Multi-tier practices Contingency factors
Systems theory. Cross-tier effect of the Environment Empirical Provide requirements to first-tier suppliers Lead firm power,
implementation of environmental related to environmental standards industry dynamism
standards
Social network theory. Effect of supply Social Empirical Provide requirements to first-tier and Dependency,
chain structure, namely, transparency, lower-tier suppliers on social standards; transparency, distance
dependency and distance, on the social audits
adoption of socially responsible
practices
Inter-organizational networks. Both Empirical Collaborate with NGOs; formal and Trust; uncertainty
Longitudinal study; governance informal coordination mechanisms
mechanisms initially relied mostly on (supplier meetings); provide assistance to
informal mechanisms, then formal suppliers
governance mechanisms were
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
incorporated
Information theory and transaction Social Empirical Social standards; suppliers reports Firm size/power
costs. Codes facilitate coordination
between immediate partners in a
supply chain, especially when the
most powerful one enforces the code
Resource-based view, complexity Both Empirical Directed sourcing; environmental/social Firm power; dependency;
theory and social networks. Three standards; environmental/social audits material criticality:
structures of triads buyersupplier Management resources
supplier were identified: open, closed
and transitional
Diffusion of innovation and ecological Environment Empirical Collaboration with first-tier and second- N/A
modernization. Identified three types tier suppliers; environmental standards;
of firms, namely, early adopters, environmental audits
followers and laggards, based on the
adoption of green supply chain
management practices
Contingency resource-based view; Environment Empirical Collaboration with first-tier and second- Industry
institutional theory; stakeholder tier suppliers; environmental standards;
theory. Industry differences in environmental audits
embracing GSCM practices
Analysis of the collaborative practices Environment Empirical Buyer-generated databases; provide Firm power; knowledge
with suppliers and NGOs used to assistance to first-tier suppliers on how to resources; visibility
manage lower-tier suppliers monitor lower-tier suppliers;
environmentally environmental standards developed by
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
NGOs; environmental audits; long-term
quantity commitments; directed sourcing;
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
suppliers working groups
(continued)
 Table I
Social or Type of
Study Main theory and contribution environment-focused study Multi-tier practices Contingency factors
Kim and Rhee (2012) Collaboration with lower-tier suppliers Environment Empirical Collaboration with first-tier and lower-tier N/A
is a critical factor in green supply suppliers
chains performance
Simpson et al. (2012) Institutional theory. The role of firms Both Theoretical Environmental/social standards Visibility; industry
internal capabilities to the success of pollution level
voluntary management standards
Plambeck (2012) Discusses lower-tier suppliers Environment Theoretical Provide assistance to suppliers Trust; firm power
incentives to invest in green practices
Lee et al. (2012b) Shows how firms can rely on NGO Environment Empirical Collaboration with NGOs; NGO-generated Firm power; visibility;
databases to monitor lower-tier databases; provide assistance to first-tier accountability;
suppliers suppliers on how to monitor lower-tier knowledge resources
suppliers
Mueller et al. (2009) Standards alone are insufficient to Both Theoretical Environmental/social standards N/A
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong

guarantee sustainability upstream the

supply chain
Gonzalez et al. (2008) Resource-based view; signalling Environment Empirical Environmental standards Firm size
theory. Signalling theory can be
applied to reduce information
asymmetry in environmental issues;
EMS as a pre-requisite for supplier

647
environmental pressure
Parmigiani et al. (2011) Efficient vs responsive supply chains; Both Theoretical Audits; monitor suppliers; collaborate Firm power; control;
technical vs relational capabilities. with suppliers; social/environmental accountability
Accountability and control are critical standards
variables that determine supply chain
sustainability strategy
Crespin-Mazet and Industrial networks. Three types of Environment Empirical Provide requirements to suppliers; audits; Knowledge resources;
Dontenwill (2012) legitimacyproduct legitimacy, environmental standards; collaboration product stability
corporate legitimacy and cause with NGOs
legitimacyand different roles of
business and non-business actors in
the firms extended sustainable supply
network
Foerstl et al. (2010) Dynamic capabilities view. Firms must Environment Empirical Environmental standards; collaboration Perceived stakeholder
integrate external responsiveness with with suppliers; collaboration with NGOs pressure
supply risk management to create a
truly dynamic capability
Cheng (2011) Relational risk; resource-based view. Environment Empirical Collaboration with suppliers Power asymmetry
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663

Relational risk is found to be

negatively associated with willingness
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

to share knowledge
(continued)
 Table I
Social or Type of
Study Main theory and contribution environment-focused study Multi-tier practices Contingency factors
Cheng and Sheu (2012) Transaction costs economics; relational Environment Empirical Collaboration with suppliers Relational proclivity;
risk. Opportunistic behaviour and relational benefits,
dysfunctional conflict decrease the connectedness
willingness to establish relationships
to enhance the strategy quality for the
green supply chain
Caniels et al. (2013) Green purchasing. Supplier readiness Environment Empirical Environmental standards; collaboration Supplier readiness;
and customer requirements are with first-tier suppliers; monitoring of customer requirements
significant drivers in supplier suppliers
participation
Boyd et al. (2007) Procedural justice perspective. A CSR Both Theoretical Supplier monitoring; environmental Firm power; dependency
implementation characterized by standards
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong

procedural justice rather than by

greater monitoring is more likely to
increase supplier compliance
Bourlakis et al. (2014) Large manufacturers rather than the Environment Empirical Collaboration with first-tier and lower-tier Firm size
big retailers were found to be the suppliers
sustainability performance
champions

648
Wittstruck et al. (2012) Signalling, information provision and Environment Empirical Environmental standards; sharing N/A
the adoption of standards are crucial information with suppliers; monitoring
preconditions for the overall success of lower-tier suppliers
SSCM
MacCarthy and Jayarathne The benefits of a strongly collaborative Both Empirical Collaboration with first-tier suppliers Visibility; firm power
(2012) network in enhancing a sustainability
agenda
Mares (2010) Analyses where do the buyers Social Theoretical Monitoring of first-tier and lower-tier Visibility; distance; firm
responsibilities end as supplier suppliers; social standards size
distance increases in lower tiers of the
value chain, and what concepts are
used to limit these responsibilities
Shukla et al. (2009) There is huge gap in lower-tier Both Empirical Environmental/social standards; Firm size
upstream supply chains of auto OEMs, collaboration with first-tier and lower-tier
about sustainability issues such as suppliers
material selection, supplier selection,
vendor development, evaluation of
vendors and use of clean fuel
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663

transporters in inbound and outbound

logistics
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

(continued)
 Table I
Social or Type of
Study Main theory and contribution environment-focused study Multi-tier practices Contingency factors
Castka and Balzarova Institutional theory; diffusion of Social Theoretical Social standards Visibility; firm size
(2008) innovation. The focus on a socially-
responsible (SR) process requires much
closer alignment in the supply chain in
comparison to SR product orientation,
especially in high-visibility sectors
(pharmaceutical, chemical, clothing,
etc)
Johnston and Linton Social networks. Presents evidence Environment Empirical Collaboration with first-tier suppliers; Complexity of
(2000) that some types of social networks collaboration with NGOs implementation;
influence implementation success more knowledge resources;
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains

than others firm size

Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong

Zhu and Sarkis (2004) Second-tier supplier environmentally Environment Empirical Collaboration with first-tier suppliers; Firm size; quality
friendly practice evaluation is a monitoring of second-tier suppliers; management and just-in-
statistically significant item of external environmental standards; audits; provide time implementation
GSCM environmental design specifications to
suppliers
Esty and Winston (2006) Highly visible firms tend to establish Environment Empirical Collaboration with first-tier and lower-tier Firms size; visibility
actively direct links with lower-tiers suppliers; collaboration with NGOs;

649
and partnership with NGOs, whereas
SMEs might explore a bandwagon
strategy
Gualandris et al (2013) Stakeholder theory; accounting. A
framework of sustainability assessment
and verification (SAV), encompassing
depth (number of tiers) and breadth
(number of products)
Plambeck et al. (2012) Large firms are collaborating with
NGO to facilitate monitoring and
helping both first-tier and lower-tier
suppliers self-identify problems
Lee et al. (2012a) How industry groups and NGOs are
facilitating learning among suppliers
and screening lower-tier suppliers by
audits; environmental standards;
monitoring of lower-tier suppliers;
bandwagon strategy of supplier
selection; share buyer-generated or NGO-
generated databases
Both Theoretical First-tier and lower-tier supplier Stakeholder saliency
sustainability assessment and verification
Environment Theoretical Provide assistance to first-tier suppliers Knowledge resources;
on how to monitor lower-tier suppliers; firm power; distance
provider incentives to disclose problems;
collaborate with NGOs; collaborate with
competitors
Environment Theoretical Collaboration with NGOs and Firm power; knowledge
competitors; provide information to first- resources; distance
tier suppliers on how to select and
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663

focal firm and first-tier suppliers monitor lower-tier suppliers

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

(continued)
 Table I
Social or Type of
Study Main theory and contribution environment-focused study Multi-tier practices Contingency factors
Sarkis (2012) Resource-based view; transaction Environment Theoretical Collaboration with suppliers; sharing of Distance; firm size;
costs; resource dependency; environmental data with stakeholders knowledge resources
stakeholder theory. Proposes a
framework that analyses green supply
chains using seven boundaries:
organizational, proximal,
informational, political, temporal,
cultural, legal, economic and
technological
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong

Delmas and Montiel Transaction costs; information theory. Environment Empirical Environmental standards Distance; dependency;
(2009) Suppliers both with tighter years of relationship;
relationships with their customers and firm power; state level
with more distant relationships are of pollution; state
likely to adopt the ISO 14001 environmental
standard, though for different reasons regulation; quality
implementation

650
Pagell and Wu (2009) A concern for continuity of lower-tier Both Empirical Collaboration with NGOs, competitors Firm size; industry
suppliers is an important measure of and local governments
supply chain sustainability.
Partnerships with NGO, competitors
and local governments are an
important source of sustainable
innovations
Schneider and Wallenburg Stakeholder theory. Industry contexts Both Theoretical Collaboration with suppliers, NGOs, Industry; stakeholder
(2012) influence on sustainable sourcing competitors, customers and local salience
profiles governments
Hartmann and Moeller Attribution theory. Antecedents and Environmental Empirical N/A Firm size, strategic
(2014) consequences of chain liability effect importance of product,
in multitier supply chains degree of incident
severity
Grimm et al (2014) Theory of critical success factors. Both Empirical N/A Trust, power,
Identified critical success factor for relationship duration,
sub-suppliers compliance with transparency, perceived
corporate sustainability value, geographical and
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663

cultural distance
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Figure 2 Scope of the articles
Governance mechanisms
Drawing on the research sample, we identified the practices
used by lead firms to manage multi-tier relationships with
suppliers. Not all of these practices are specifically developed
for addressing sustainability, as some are used to manage
other issues (e.g. cost). However, sustainability is one of the
main motivations for multi-tier practices (Mena et al., 2013).
These practices can be grouped in four basic approaches:
Direct, Indirect, Work with third parties and Dont
bother. They are defined and discussed as follows. Table II
further provides a list of these approaches identified by
existing studies. A list of organizational theories applied to the
four approaches is depicted in Table III.
Direct
In this approach, lead firms have a direct access to lower-tier
suppliers. They can by-pass first-tier suppliers and establish a
direct contact with lower-tier suppliers, to monitor, govern
and collaborate with them to improve their environmental or
social performance. This approach is similar to the closed
structure of buyersuppliersupplier triads suggested by Mena
et al. (2013). In this direct approach, however, links may
also be informal and may occur on an ad hoc basis (e.g. the
lead firm provides information that might improve lower-tier
supplier sustainability). Accordingly, the literature on strategic
networks (Jarillo, 1988; Sydow and Windeler, 1998; Zaheer
et al., 2000) proposes that a hub firm can exert a leading role
in a network, due to its closeness to the end consumer, size or
ability to build connections. It allows lead firms to fill in
structural holes (i.e. the lack of connections between agents in
a supply network) and therefore obtain power in the network
(Burt, 2009). Additionally, Pilbeam et al. (2012) argue that
the coordination of dispersed supply networks is less costly
and more effective when there is centralization and it is
conducted by a lead firm. Small suppliers lack the
information, resource or expertise to manage environmental
Figure 3 Research framework
Contingency variables
Governance mechanisms (social / environmental)
3rd-tier 2nd-tier 1st-tier Lead firm
supplier supplier supplier
Lower-tier suppliers
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
issues, and need external stimulus from end-user product
manufacturers (Lee, 2008).
To a further extent, Wu et al. (2010) claim that a firm can
influence not only the direct link with first-tier suppliers, but
also the indirect link between two suppliers. For example,
Choi and Hong (2002) verified that Honda selects, directly,
many of its lower-tier suppliers. This approach can also be
explained using resource dependence: firms cannot be
self-sufficient with respect to certain strategic resources and,
therefore, should collaborate with other firms controlling such
resources (Chang et al., 2012). This is particularly important
concerning resources (e.g. standards, procedures,
technologies, etc.) that affect sustainability (Sarkis et al.,
2011). Additionally, it has been argued that high-density
social networks reduce transaction costs by making
opportunism more costly (because of reputational effects) and
more easily discovered (Zaheer et al., 2000). From an
information perspective, greater interaction with lower-tier
suppliers reduces information asymmetry (Simpson, 2010).
The main disadvantage of this approach is the increased
managerial effort demanded by the lead firm (Mena et al.,
2013), e.g. when lead firms have to identify and monitor
lower-tier suppliers (Choi and Hong, 2002). Nevertheless,
firms that forge a great number of alliances are able to extract
more value from these links, as they gain more experience
(Plambeck, 2012).
Indirect
In this approach, contact with lower-tier suppliers is
performed indirectly through another supplier. For example,
lead firms use their power over first-tier suppliers to make
them monitor or collaborate with lower-tier suppliers. It is
difficult for a single company to manage compliance within
the entire supply chain, thus cross-tier collaboration is
essential (Mueller et al., 2009; Koh et al., 2012), e.g. lead
firms may pressure first-tier suppliers to require environmental
or social certification from lower-tier suppliers. This approach
is based on the open structure of triads suggested by Mena
et al. (2013), but in this case related to any lower-tier supplier
(i.e. not only the second tier).
Standards are a major indirect mechanism of coordination
of lower-tier suppliers (Pilbeam et al., 2012; Grimm et al.,
2011), reducing information asymmetry (Prado, 2013) and
transaction costs (Ciliberti et al., 2009). Empirical studies
confirm that SMEs can be effective in spreading the
sustainability requirements received from large companies to
their own suppliers (Ayuso et al., 2013). Accordingly,
information-sharing mechanisms are highly important in this
approach; e.g. when first-tier suppliers adopt the same
standard as the lead firm, they are able to gather
sustainability-related information for lower-tier suppliers
(Ciliberti et al., 2009). Moreover, the relational view (Dyer
and Singh, 1998) may explain the extent to which the nature
of critical resources at lower tiers affects the relationship
between lead firms and first-tier suppliers. For example, firms
such as Nike train key first-tier suppliers on the use of
environmental databases to monitor and collaborate with
lower-tier suppliers (Plambeck and Denend, 2011).
Work with third parties (NGOs, government, competitors, etc.)
In this approach, lead firms collaborate or delegate
651
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663

Table II Lower-tier supplier management practices

Approach Practices
Direct Provide requirements to lower-tier suppliers (e.g. codes of conduct,
list of hazardous substances, etc.)
Directed sourcing; select directly lower-tier suppliers or use a list
of preferred lower-tier suppliers
Monitor suppliers (e.g. visits, audits, surveys)
Share buyer-generated databases (product composition,
environmental footprint, etc.)
Provide assistance to suppliers (e.g. training, supplier conferences,
joint applied research)
Indirect Provide requirements to first-tier suppliers (e.g. codes of conduct,
list of hazardous substances, etc.)
Require that lower-tier suppliers be certified (e.g. ISO 14000, SA
8000)
Provide assistance to first-tier suppliers on how to monitor and/or
collaborate with lower-tier suppliers
Work with third parties Use information from third parties (e.g. NGOs) to monitor lower-
tier suppliers (e.g. environmental databases)
Collaborate with NGOs (e.g. joint development of environmental
standards)
Collaborate with competitors (e.g. to develop common audit
standards; industry groups; industry self-regulations; voluntary
standards)
Delegate responsibilities to third parties (e.g. standards
institutions, third-party auditors)
Dont bother No information about lower-tier suppliers
Focus on first-tier suppliers/internal focus
References
Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Boyd et al., 2007;
Mueller et al., 2009; Zhu et al., 2012;
Wittstruck et al., 2012; Simpson et al., 2012;
Caniels et al., 2013
Mena et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2012a
Rao, 2002; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Boyd et al.,
2007; Shukla et al., 2009; Vachon and
Klassen, 2006; Zhu et al., 2008; Awaysheh
and Klassen, 2010; Foerstl et al., 2010
Plambeck and Denend, 2011; Lee et al., 2012a
Rao, 2002; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al.,
2008; Cheng and Sheu, 2012; MacCarthy
et al., 2012; Kim and Rhee, 2012; Plambeck,
2012; Zhu et al., 2012; Bourlakis et al., 2014
Koh et al., 2012; Simpson et al., 2012; Delmas
and Montiel, 2009
Esty and Winston, 2006; Castka and
Balzarova, 2008; Gonzalez et al., 2008;
Ciliberti et al., 2009; Mueller et al., 2009;
Simpson et al., 2012; Wittstruck et al., 2012;
Mena et al., 2013
Plambeck, 2012; Plambeck and Denend, 2011;
Plambeck et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2012a
Plambeck and Denend, 2011; Plambeck et al.,
2012; Lee et al., 2012b
Pagell and Wu, 2009; Alvarez et al., 2010; Lee
et al., 2012b; Peters et al (2011)
Esty and Winston, 2006; Plambeck et al.,
2012; Prado, 2013; Peters et al., 2011
Esty and Winston, 2006; Schneider and
Wallenburg, 2012; Mena et al., 2013
Esty and Winston, 2006; Gonzalez et al., 2008

responsibilities to other organizations (e.g. NGOs,
competitors, firms from the same industry, standards
institutions, etc.) to elaborate sustainability standards,
implement industry self-regulations (Prado, 2013) or
voluntary standards (Grimm et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2011),
monitor suppliers using third-party sustainability databases,
etc. Even though companies can delegate some responsibilities
to the third parties such as certification bodies, it is important
for lead firms to provide input to such third parties and even
oversight their effectiveness. Another possibility is to
implement coalitions with competitors and other industries to
improve negotiation power with respect to lower-tier
suppliers, and create or participate in voluntary sustainability
initiatives which involve lower-tier suppliers (Grimm et al.,
2011; Peters et al., 2011). For example, Walmarts alliance
with Unilever aiming at accruing more power with respect to
Cargill, a critical lower-tier supplier of sustainable palm oil
(Plambeck, 2012). Third-party monitoring of standards
complements incomplete contracts, especially with respect to
lower-tier suppliers (Ciliberti et al., 2009), e.g. Walmarts
environmental standards developed together with the Global
Aquaculture Alliance for its farm-raised fish products
(Plambeck and Denend, 2011).
In addition, firms can also use NGO-built environmental
and social databases to monitor their lower-tier suppliers
(Miemczyk et al., 2012). This can be understood using
resource dependency theory, which supports the notion that
the lack of strategic resources may incentivize lead firms to
establish direct links with third parties (Chang et al., 2012).
From a social network perspective, nodes with more ties will
have more access to information (Borgatti and Li, 2009).
However, the relational view argues that cooperating with
non-business actors such as NGOs requires different
relational patterns (Crespin-Mazet and Dontenwill, 2012).
From an agency theory perspective, this new triad relationship
(i.e. lower-tier supplierthird party buyer), without
commercial contractual obligations, will incur in a different set
of incentives and information-sharing mechanisms.

652
 Table III Theoretical foundations for multi-tier sustainable supply chain management
Theories
Agency theoryagency problems
such as asymmetric information,
moral hazard and conflict of
interest add agency costs to the
lead firm, leading to the use of
various monitoring practices,
reward mechanisms, contract
design and information sharing
mechanisms (Eisenhardt, 1989)
Transaction cost theoryexplains
the costs (search and
information, bargaining,
policing and enforcement)
involved in making economic
exchange (Williamson, 1981)
Information process theory and
signalling theoryhelp to
understand how information
653
asymmetry can affect the
effectiveness of sustainable
supply chain practices and the
use of specific information-
sharing mechanisms (Simpson
et al., 2007)
Social network theoryThe
performance of a buying
company depends on the
structure of the extended
supply network in which it is
embedded (Choi and Kim, 2008)
Balance theory - balance is
reached when everyone
maintains a positive
relationship with one another;
balanced in relationships leads
to positive outcomes,
(Cartwright and Harary, 1956)
Dont bother
Understand how agency problems
can drive firms not to bother
about the management of lower-
tier suppliers
Understand how transaction cost
can drive firms not to bother
about the management of lower-
tier suppliers
Understand in which conditions
information exchange with or
about lower-tier suppliers will not
be effective to the lead firm
Understand in which context the
extended supply network
sustainability will not affect the
lead firm performance
Relevant to the study of triad
(suppliersupplierbuyer) when
buyer does not bother to manage
the lower-tiers
Multi-tier sustainable supply chain management practices
Direct (second tier, etc.) Indirect (via first tier) Work with third parties
Understand agency problems Understand agency problems with a A new triad relationship (lower-tierthird parties
with a focus on the direct focus on tasks related to the buyer) without real contractual obligation, meaning
relationship with low-tier management of low-tier suppliers the third party is seen as the agent that does not
suppliers while considering receive payment directly from the buyers
the relationships with the
first-tier suppliers
Understand transaction costs Understand transaction costs unique While there is no commercial contract relationship
unique to this relationship to this relationship and drivers with the third party, still there will be search and
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
and drivers behind the direct behind the direct management of information and bargaining costs involved
management of the lower- the lower-tier suppliers via the first-
tier suppliers tier suppliers
Understand information needs and information-sharing mechanisms Working with third parties can reduce the risk of
with first-tier and lower-tier suppliers (also information from/to low- satisficing signalling
tiers suppliers via the first-tier suppliers)
The centralization and Understand to what extent the Understand which specific characteristics will be
formalization level within a density of the social network will more effective with respect to the ties with each
social network may improve impact its sustainability third party (NGOs, government, competitors)
the performance of the lead performance
firm
Can be used to understand the balance among the different relationships e.g. first-tierbuyersecond-tier; third-party
buyersecond-tier; third-partybuyerfirst-tierCan be used to explain the different multi-tier sustainable supply chain
management practicesBalance can be viewed as a contingency factor
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
(continued)
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Table III
Theories
Relational viewexplain how
inter-organizational
relationships within the supply
chain can be a source of
competitive advantage by
facilitating access to critical
(network) resources (Dyer and
Singh, 1998)
Resource-based
viewCompetitive advantage
may be sustained by
incorporating resources that are
valuable, rare, imperfectly
imitable and non-substitutable
(Barney, 1991)
Stakeholder and institutional
theory - Companies produce
externalities that affect many
parties (stakeholders), who in
654
response will exert pressure
mechanisms over the firms (Zhu
et al., 2008)
Systems thinkingThe
component part of a system can
be best understood in the
context of relationships with
other systems rather than in
isolation (Checkland and
Holwell, 1997)
Complexity theoryAs system
complexity (i.e. the number of
elements and the degree to
which these elements are
differentiated) increases, it
becomes more difficult to
determine its performance
outcomes (Crozier and Thoenig,
1976)
Dont bother
N/A
Identify which internal resources
may compensate the lack of
contact with lower tiers
Analyse how the lack of
stakeholder pressures may shape
a reactive approach by lead firms
with respect to supply chain
sustainability
N/A
Explain why the reduction in
operational complexity may
incentivize firms to adopt this
approach
Multi-tier sustainable supply chain management practices
Direct (second tier, etc.)
To identify which critical
resources justify a direct
approach to lower-tier
suppliers
Understand the mechanisms
of identifying and
transferring sustainability-
critical resources directly
from lower tiers
Identify which stakeholders
and mechanisms of pressure
will incentivize firms to
adopt a direct approach to
lower tiers
Explain how the direct link
with lower-tier suppliers can
improve the sustainability of
other parties of the system
Investigate to what extent
the direct link with lower
tiers affect system
complexity and how this will
impact overall sustainability
performance
Indirect (via first tier) Work with third parties
To what extent will the nature of
the critical lower-tier resources
affect the relationship with the
first-tier suppliers
Understand the mechanisms of
identifying and transferring
sustainability-critical resources from
lower tiers via first-tier suppliers
Understand the mechanisms that
lead firms use to transfer
sustainability pressures across
several tiers of the supply chain
N/A
Investigate to what extent the lack
of direct link with lower tiers
affects system complexity and how
this will impact overall
sustainability performance
Understand the specific characteristics of the inter-
organizational relationships with each third party
and how these characteristics are related to the
critical sustainability resources
Understand the critical resources available in third
parties and how they affect sustainability
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Analyse the complex role that third parties may
exert by simultaneously generating and supporting
the management of different stakeholder pressures
Understand how the link with third parties affects
the sustainability in other parties of the system
Understand the links between collaboration with
third parties, system complexity and sustainability
performance
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
(continued)
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Table III
Theories
Resource dependence - Firms
cannot be self-sufficient with
regard to strategically critical
resources (e.g. standards,
procedures, technologies,
material sources, distribution
channels) and thus need to
collaborate with suppliers (Zhu
and Sarkis, 2004)
Path dependenceFirms are
655
incentivized to reinforce initial
choices; and thus limit future
choice options (David, 1985)
Social embeddedness theory
Firms are embedded in
networks of social relationships,
characterized by the strength its
social ties; this can be either a
cooperation enabler or a
liability (Granovetter, 1985)
Dont bother
Explain under which conditions
lead firms may reduce their
sustainability resource
dependence and to what extent
this justifies their reduced links
with suppliers
Explain how initial non-
sustainable choices become
reinforced and supply network
structures may persist in spite of
non-optimal sustainability
performance
Explain why lead firms may
choose to neglect ties with lower-
tier suppliers based on the
possible drawbacks caused by
structural embeddedness
Multi-tier sustainable supply chain management practices
Direct (second tier, etc.) Indirect (via first tier) Work with third parties
Understand how and to Explain under which conditions lead Understand how and to what extent sustainability
what extent sustainability firms may reduce their sustainability resource dependence incentivizes lead firms to
Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
resource dependence resource dependence and to what establish direct links with third parties
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
incentivizes lead firms to extent this justifies their reduced
establish direct links with links with suppliers
lower-tier suppliers
N/A N/A N/A
Explain why lead firms may Explain why lead firms may choose Explain why lead firms may establish direct links
establish direct links with to neglect ties with lower-tier with third parties (in particular, NGOs, government
lower-tier suppliers, suppliers based on the possible and competitors), motivated by the cooperation
motivated by the drawbacks caused by structural benefits of an increased embeddedness
cooperation benefits of an embeddedness
increased embeddedness
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Nevertheless, issues such as transaction costs will still be
present: while there is no commercial contract relationship
with the third party, still there will be search, information and
bargaining costs involved. Finally, the multiple and complex
relationships that have to be managed among different actors
in this approach can be better analysed using balance theory
(Choi and Wu, 2009).
Dont bother
In this approach, firms focus on first-tier suppliers and have
neither information about lower-tier suppliers nor intention to
influence them. This approach is found in firms with limited
power in the supply chain (Esty and Winston, 2006). Drawing
on the notion of emergence of supply networks, firms may find
it hard to deliberately plan the exact structure of the network
after the first-tier supplier selection (Choi et al., 2001).
Moreover, the final assembler often has rather imprecise or
inexistent information regarding lower-tier suppliers (Choi
and Hong, 2002). This approach may be more applied to less
complex supply chains (e.g. less tiers), or firms with less
visibility to the final customer (Caridi et al., 2010). Firms that
face less intense institutional pressure tend to be followers
and adopt a more conservative approach, i.e. implement
successful practices after they are tested by pioneer companies
(Simpson et al., 2007) or use the same first-tier suppliers as
leading firms (Esty and Winston, 2006). They are usually
smaller and have fewer technical and financial resources
(Delmas and Montiel, 2009).
This approach can be understood under the theoretical lens
of the resource-based view, i.e. certain firms may rely on
internal and external (first-tier supplier) resources that
compensate the lack of contact with lower-tier suppliers.
Similarly, path dependence and the reinforcement of internal
structures that compensate the lack of external links may
reduce the incentives to build additional ties with lower-tier
suppliers. Developing costly information exchange
mechanisms is often ineffective and uneconomical (Simpson
et al., 2007); therefore, if agency problems (e.g. asymmetric
information and conflicts of interest) are reduced, it may be
unnecessary to rely on sophisticated mechanisms of
monitoring or information sharing. Furthermore, excessive
structural embeddedness may be a liability to lead firms
(Granovetter, 1985). Finally, as system complexity increases,
it becomes more difficult to control its performance (Sarkis
et al., 2011) and, therefore, a simplification in the structural
and operational complexity may be beneficial to the lead firm
(Kim et al., 2011).
It is important to mention that the above four approaches
may be complementary to each other, i.e. a firm may
simultaneously rely on more than one approach for a specific
supplier or material. For example, a firm may collaborate with
lower-tier suppliers by training them on cleaner production
methods and, at the same time, work with an NGO to design
an industry-specific environmental standard. In particular, the
purchasing of certified material often implies the collaboration
with a third party and at the same time the delegation of part
of the responsibilities on lower-tier suppliers to the certifying
organization and the first-tier supplier. The higher the
complexity, the more diversified should be the set of
governance mechanisms (Grandori and Soda, 2006). Based
on this, we formulate the following initial proposition:
656
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
P1. Lead firms intend to achieve sustainability in a
multi-tier supply chain using one or more of the four
approaches: Direct, Indirect, Work with
third-party or Dont bother.
In Table III, we relate the main organizational theoretical
frameworks to the identified approaches.
Contingency variables
Contingency theory has attracted considerable interest
recently in operations management and SCM literature
(Wiengarten et al., 2012). Sousa and Voss (2008) argue that,
rather than analysing management practices, researchers
should analyse the context under which they are effective, by
examining, exhaustively, the literature and theoretical
frameworks, and providing a wide-ranging list of factors. We
describe below some of the contingency variables found in the
SSCM literature and their effect on the approach chosen by
the lead firm.
Power
Power is the ability to influence the activities of other members
of the network (Pilbeam et al., 2012). Parmigiani et al. (2011)
make a distinction between two types of influence: economic
(negotiation power) and non-economic (industry influence).
Alternatively, Mena et al. (2013) distinguish between two
sources of power: possession of resources (e.g. ability to offer
contracts) and supply chain position (e.g. proximity to the
market). Its role in SSCM governance mechanisms is a
promising venue of research (Alvarez et al., 2010), as
asymmetric power relations are intrinsic to global supply
networks (Pilbeam et al., 2012). Power distribution influences
the depth of collaboration between buyers and suppliers in
networks (Kahkonen, 2014). For example, coordination
through standards requires that a powerful supply chain
partner enforces it (Ciliberti et al., 2009), and supplier power
limits sustainable SCM (Hoejmose et al., 2013). Whereas
trust is related to collaboration, power is used to achieve
compliance (Handfield and Nichols, 1999).
Stakeholder pressure
When firms are more visible to the media, institutional
pressure is often more intense (Castka and Balzarova, 2008;
Simpson et al., 2012). In this case, firms tend to adopt a more
proactive approach and establish direct links with any agent
that can contribute to the sustainability of the supply chain
(Esty and Winston, 2006). Companies with higher public
visibility will place more emphasis on the particular
sustainability dimensions focused by NGOs (Schneider and
Wallenburg, 2012). For instance, the Dirty Laundry report
by Greenpeace about the pollution issues of lower-tier textile
suppliers had exerted a lot of pressure on high-street fashion
clothing retailers (Greenpeace, 2011). Likewise, transparency
(i.e. product visibility and end-user knowledge of the supply
chain) has a positive effect on the adoption of social
sustainability by suppliers (Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010).
Similarly, stakeholder saliency determines the level and depth
of supplier monitoring (Esty and Winston, 2006; Schneider
and Wallenburg, 2012; Gualandris et al., 2013). Alternatively,
firms that are less visible to the final consumers tend to be
more reactive, waiting longer to establish links with other
agents in the supply chain (Simpson et al., 2012). Finally,
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Parmigiani et al. (2011) posit that accountability (i.e. the
extent to which firms are required or expected to justify their
supply chain decisions to stakeholders) positively affects the
impact of social/environmental capabilities on sustainability
performance. Thus, the higher the accountability, the higher
the motivation of the lead firm to invest in
social/environmental capabilities. Finally, low government
pressure may incentivize networks to self-regulate by using
standards (Pilbeam et al., 2012).
Industry
The industry effect on the effectiveness of managerial
practices has been traditionally studied in SCM (Fisher,
1997). In SSCM, recent studies suggest that industry
influence is particularly powerful (Castka and Balzarova,
2008). Wiengarten et al. (2012) demonstrate that firms in
static industries invest a higher amount, more productively, in
environmental practices than firms in dynamic ones. This is
especially important when we consider lower-tier suppliers,
because, by definition, they produce more basic raw materials,
e.g. a more static industry context. Therefore, standards may
be less effective when there is significant technological change
within the supply network (Pilbeam et al., 2012). Accordingly,
Chavez et al. (2012) have studied the effect of industry
clock-speed on the relationship between SCM and
performance. Additionally, Schneider and Wallenburg (2012)
characterize the industries into several archetypes, based on
the emphasis of environment, social or economic
sustainability. For example, the chemical industry adopts an
environmentalist profile, whereas the textile sector follows a
social activist approach. Finally, another potential industry
classification refers to the pollution level. Simpson et al.
(2012) claim that when firms operate in high-pollution
industries (e.g. chemical), institutional pressure for
performance improvement is often more intense, so they tend
to develop superior environmental capabilities and adopt a
more proactive approach. Alternatively, firms that operate in
low-pollution sectors face less intense institutional pressure
and tend to wait longer to adopt new sustainability practices.
Material criticality
Criticality of materials is commonly associated with the
impact on the final product quality or sustainability, e.g.
high-quality wheat is a key ingredient in bread making (Mena
et al., 2013). Highly critical materials may force lead firms to
establish direct links with lower-tier suppliers (i.e. a direct
approach), whereas materials with low criticality may
motivate lead firms to adopt a more indirect or dont
bother approach to lower-tier suppliers. A lead firm will
connect directly with its lower-tier suppliers that control key
product characteristics (Choi and Hong, 2002; Lee et al.,
2012a). In the organizational context, material criticality
increases the relational proclivity of the lead firm, i.e. the
benefits obtained through inter-organizational relationships
(Cheng and Sheu, 2012).
Dependency
Awaysheh and Klassen (2010) claim that dependency on
suppliers (i.e. the degree to which a firm relies on other
members of the supply chain for critical resources,
components, or capabilities) directly affects the adoption of
socially responsible practices. More specifically, joint
657
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
dependency positively influences socially responsible SCM
(Hoejmose et al., 2013). This dependency can be augmented,
depending on the level of concentration in the industry at the
lower tiers of supply chains (Plambeck, 2012), forcing lead
firms to adopt alternative governance mechanisms, e.g.
collaboration with competitors (Lee et al., 2012a).
Distance
Distance (e.g. physical, social or cultural) among supply chain
partners increases information asymmetry and coordination
efforts (Simpson et al., 2007; Mares, 2010). Similarly,
Awaysheh and Klassen (2010) verify, in a multi-industry
survey among Canadian firms, that supplier distance may
affect the adoption of socially responsible supplier practices.
They argue that, if supplier distance is small, the variety of
socially responsible supplier practices is reduced. On the other
hand, when distance increases, the lead firm relies on more
diversified governance mechanisms. Additionally, Hoejmose
et al. (2013) argue that geographic distance increases the effect
of dependency and buyer power on the level of adoption of
socially responsible SCM.
Knowledge resources
Esty and Winston (2006) posit that the lack of knowledge
resources is an important incentive for lead firms to
collaborate with third parties on the design and
implementation of sustainable practices in the supply chain.
Similarly, Plambeck and Denend (2011) argue that even big
multinational firms may lack the technical expertise to manage
the sustainability of their suppliers and, thus, they need to
associate with NGOs to implement sustainability in their
supply chains. Alternatively, firms with less technical
resources may adopt a conservative strategy, implementing
sustainable practices after leading firms, lowering their risks
(Simpson et al., 2007; Delmas and Montiel, 2009).
Based on the above understanding of contingency factors,
we formulate the following initial proposition:
P2. Power, stakeholder pressure, material criticality,
industry dynamism/pollution level, dependency,
distance and knowledge resources determine the
approach chosen by the lead firm to manage the
sustainability of lower-tier suppliers.
Based on the literature review, we propose the following
conceptual framework (Figure 4). The framework illustrates four
Figure 4 Conceptual framework
Contingency Third
Work with
variables
third party
party
Power
Stakeholder pressure Direct Lower-tier
Material criticality
Lead
firm suppliers
Industry
Dependency Indirect
Distance Dont
Knowledge resources bother
1st tier
suppliers
Relationship e.g.
direction of contact
or influence
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663

categories of multi-tier SSCM approaches a lead firm can apply,
and the contingency variables that will affect this choice.
Based on the literature review, we further refine the two
initial propositions with respect to the effect of contingency
variables on the SSCM approach (Table IV). This table
should be read as in the following example: firms following the
direct approach tend to have more power, face higher
stakeholder pressure, are more likely to operate in a
high-pollution sector and receive highly critical materials from
these suppliers. On the other extreme, firms that follow the
dont bother approach will usually have lower power, face
lower stakeholder pressure, low dependency, operate in a
low-pollution sector and will not receive highly critical
materials from these suppliers.
We now explain how our initial propositions can be refined:
when the lead firm has little power, it is not able to influence
lower-tier suppliers practices (Caniels et al., 2013; Bourlakis
et al., 2014). On the other hand, if there is a strong stakeholder
pressure, lead firms are forced to adopt a more proactive
approach, establishing direct collaboration or monitoring
lower-tier suppliers. This pressure will be stronger if the lead
firm operates in a high-pollution industry (Simpson et al.,
2012), or if the material is critical to supply chain
sustainability (Mena et al., 2013). Furthermore, if the lead
firm is highly dependent on the supplier, it will have extra
incentives to closely monitor its sustainability (Awaysheh and
Klassen, 2010). Moreover, if the lead firm has plenty of
knowledge resources, this collaboration with lower-tier
suppliers will be further encouraged (Plambeck and Denend,
2011; Simpson et al., 2007). Additionally, if the lower-tier
supplier is highly distant from the lead firm, then the lead firm
will have incentives to closely monitor its activities to reduce
information asymmetry (Simpson et al., 2007; Awaysheh and
Klassen, 2010). Finally, if the lead firm operates in a dynamic
industry, it will invest less in SSCM (Wiengarten et al., 2012),
and therefore it will avoid building direct ties with lower-tier
suppliers.
Thus, we formulate the following research proposition:
P3. The probability of the lead firm adopting the Direct
approach is positively affected by its power, stakeholder
pressure, material criticality, industry pollution level,
dependency, supply chain distance and knowledge
resources, and negatively affected by industry
dynamism.
However, a lead firms limited amount of knowledge resources
might impose some hurdles to the collaboration with suppliers
(Esty and Winston, 2006: Plambeck and Denend, 2011). In
this case, the lead firm may have to rely on a third party
possessing sustainability-related knowledge (e.g. an NGO).
Moreover, when the lead firm has limited power, it may have
to collaborate with competitors to influence their common
lower-tier suppliers (Plambeck, 2012). Furthermore, when
industry dynamism is high, it becomes costly to directly
monitor and work with a less-stable low-tier supply base to
achieve sustainability. Thus, lead firm power and knowledge
resources negatively affect the probability of collaborating with
a third party.
Therefore, we formulate the research hypothesis:
P4. The probability of the lead firm adopting the Work
with third party is positively affected by stakeholder
pressure, material criticality, industry pollution level,
dependency and supply chain distance, and negatively
affected by its knowledge resources, power and industry
dynamism.
However, when the material criticality and dependency are
low, the lead firm may prefer to avoid complexity by not
establishing a direct link with lower-tier suppliers (Cheng and
Sheu, 2012; Plambeck, 2012; Mena et al., 2013). Moreover, if
the distance is low, so is information asymmetry (Awaysheh
and Klassen, 2010) and, therefore, the lead firm may rely on
less complex governance mechanisms, e.g. sustainability
certifications and first-tier supplier pressure (Koh et al., 2012).
Additionally, when industry dynamism is high and pollution
level is low, environmental investments will be less effective
(Simpson et al., 2007; Wiengarten et al., 2012); therefore, the
lead firm will have less incentive to build direct links upstream
in the supply chain. Finally, when lead firm power is high,
pressure on first-tier suppliers can be highly effective (Koh

Table IV Approaches vs contingency variables

Approach
Contingency variable References Direct Indirect Third party Dont bother
Power Ciliberti et al., 2009; Parmigiani et al., 2011; Simpson High High Low Low
et al., 2012; Schneider and Wallenburg, 2012; Mena
et al., 2013; Grimm et al., 2014
Stakeholder pressure Esty and Winston, 2006; Castka and Balzarova, 2008; High High High Low
Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010; Simpson et al., 2012;
Schneider and Wallenburg, 2012
Industry pollution level Esty and Winston, 2006; Simpson et al., 2012; High Low High Low
Plambeck, 2012
Industry dynamism Wiengarten et al., 2012; Koh et al., 2012 Low High Low High
Dependency Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010; Plambeck, 2012; Lee High Low High Low
et al., 2012a
Distance Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010; Grimm et al., 2014 High Low High High
Material criticality Mena et al., 2013; Hartmann and Moeller (2014) High Low High Low
Knowledge resources Esty and Winston, 2006; Plambeck and Denend, 2011 High Low Low Low

658
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
et al., 2012). All these factors motivate lead firms to use an
Indirect approach through their power over first-tier
suppliers.
So, we posit the following:
P5. The probability of the lead firm adopting the Indirect
approach is positively affected by its power, stakeholder
pressure and industry dynamism, and negatively
affected by material criticality, industry pollution level,
supply chain distance, dependency and knowledge
resources.
Nevertheless, when the lead firms power is not high enough to
influence first-tier suppliers, a Dont bother approach may
be more preferable (Bourlakis et al., 2014), e.g. selecting the
same suppliers of highly sustainable companies (Esty and
Winston, 2006). Furthermore, the reduced level of
stakeholder pressures may induce a passive approach by lead
firms, with respect to supply chain sustainability (Castka and
Balzarova, 2008). Finally, if lower-tier suppliers are located in
distant countries, lead firms may have a higher incentive to
invest in monitoring or collaboration activities (Hoejmose
et al., 2013).
Thus, we posit the following proposition:
P6. The probability of the lead firm adopting the Dont
bother approach is positively affected by industry
dynamism, and negatively affected by its power,
stakeholder pressure, material criticality, industry
pollution level, knowledge resources, supply chain
distance and dependency.
In the next section we discuss research and managerial
implications of this conceptual framework.
Conclusion
This paper advances research in SSCM in several ways. First,
it examines existing literature and theories of multi-tier SCM
using a systematic approach. Second, it provides a novel
framework for studying sustainability in multi-tier supply
chains that goes beyond the one-tier buyerseller
relationships, providing a road map for future studies on the
area. Third, this research develops theoretical propositions
which explain the effects of the combination of several
governance mechanisms, practices and contingency factors to
the management of supply chain sustainability, expanding the
relational perspective present in previous studies (Choi and
Wu, 2009; Mena et al., 2013; Wilhelm, 2011). Furthermore,
this study has advanced the multi-tier SCM literature (Meixell
and Gargeya, 2005; Mena et al., 2013) by incorporating the
sustainability dimension. In particular, this study has
contrasted the developments of several organizational theories
with respect to managing lower-tier suppliers. This helps
strengthen the theoretical foundations of this emerging stream
of research.
From a managerial perspective, this paper addresses a lot of
complicated issues facing supply chain and sustainability
managers, especially when it comes to the power of a lead firm
in influencing the lower-tier suppliers, the effective ways the
relationships with the lower-tier suppliers can be managed and
the different capabilities required to manage multiple parties.
659
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
This paper synthesizes research in the area and proposes a
multi-tier conceptual framework for supply chain managers to
manage sustainability. Furthermore, this integrative
framework embeds some contingency variables and
propositions that can suggest when an approach is more
effective than another. These findings have critical managerial
implications, e.g. supplier selection, purchasing processes,
production location, etc. In particular, the study provides
guidance on how to take into consideration buyer, supplier,
industry and product characteristics simultaneously, when
taking such decisions from a sustainability perspective.
Although many studies focus on a specific context
characteristic, real-world decisions have to incorporate a much
more diversified set of variables. This study lays down the
theoretical foundations to bridge this gap.
Concerning the limitations of this study, we acknowledge
the drawbacks of the systematic literature review methodology
(Denyer and Tranfield, 2009), especially those concerning the
literature sampling criteria and analysis. Moreover, further
empirical research is required to test the research propositions,
and to validate the conceptual framework and generalize the
conclusions. Further research should explore cross-industry
empirical data, testing the research propositions and the
applicability of the conceptual framework. Additionally, it is
necessary to develop methodologies for prioritizing the great
number of lower-tier suppliers (thousands, in many cases)
according to specific criteria. Finally, studies should test
extent to which approaches and contingencies differ for social
and environmental sustainability. Therefore, we believe this
study contributes to expand knowledge on this critical issue
and sets the ground for future SSCM research initiatives.
References
Abbasi, M. and Nilsson, F. (2012), Themes and challenges
in making supply chains environmentally sustainable,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 5, pp. 517-530.
Alvarez, G., Pilbeam, C. and Wilding, R. (2010), Nestl
Nespresso AAA sustainable quality program: an
investigation into the governance dynamics in a
multi-stakeholder supply chain network, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 165-182.
Ashby, A., Leat, M. and Hudson-Smith, M. (2012), Making
connections: a review of supply chain management and
sustainability literature, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-516.
Awaysheh, A. and Klassen, R.D. (2010), The impact of
supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially
responsible practices, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 12,
pp. 1243-1268.
Ayuso, S., Roca, M. and Colom, R. (2013), SMEs as
transmitters of CSR requirements in the supply chain,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18
No. 5, pp. 497-508.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 99-120.
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Barney, J.B. and Hansen, M.H. (1994), Trustworthiness as a
source of competitive advantage, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 15 No. S1, pp. 175-190.
Borgatti, S.P. and Li, X. (2009), On social network analysis
in a supply chain context, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 5-22.
Bourlakis, M., Maglaras, G. and Fotopoulos, D.C. (2014),
Examining sustainability performance in the supply chain:
the case of the Greek dairy sector, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 56-66.
Boyd, D.E., Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W., and Werhane, P.
(2007), Corporate social responsibility in global supply
chains: a procedural justice perspective, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 341-356.
Burt, R.S. (2009), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of
Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Caniels, M.C.J., Gehrsitz, M.H. and Semeijn, J. (2013),
Participation of suppliers in greening supply chains: an
empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 134-143.
Caridi, M. Crippa, L., Perego, A., Sianesi, A. and Tumino, A.
(2010), Do virtuality and complexity affect supply chain
visibility?, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 372-383.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), A framework of
sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new
theory, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387.
Cartwright, D. and Harary, F. (1956), Structural balance: a
generalization of Heiders theory, Psychological Review,
Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 277-289.
Castka, P. and Balzarova, M.A. (2008), ISO 26000 and
supply chain on the diffusion of the social responsibility
standard, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 274-286.
Chang, C.W., Chiang, D.M. and Pai, F.Y. (2012),
Cooperative strategy in supply chain networks, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1114-1124.
Chavez, R., Fynes, B., Gimenez, C. and Wiengarten, F.
(2012), Assessing the effect of industry clockspeed on the
supply chain management practice-performance
relationship, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 235-248.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1997), Information, Systems
and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex.
Cheng, J. (2011), Inter-organizational relationships and
knowledge sharing in green supply chains moderating by
relational benefits and guanxi, Transportation Research Part
E, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 837-849.
Cheng, J. and Sheu, J. (2012), Inter-organizational
relationships and strategy quality in green supply chains -
moderated by opportunistic behaviour and dysfunctional
conflict, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 563-572.
Choi, T.Y. and Hong, Y. (2002), Unveiling the structure of
supply networks: case studies in Honda, Acura, and
DaimlerChrysler, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 469-493.
660
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
Choi, T.Y. and Kim, Y. (2008), Structural embeddedness
and supplier management: a network perspective, Journal
of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 5-13.
Choi, T.Y. and Wu, Z. (2009), Triads in supply networks:
theorizing buyer-supplier-supplier relationships, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 8-25.
Choi, T.Y., Dooley, K.J. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2001),
Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control
versus emergence, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 351-366.
Ciliberti, F., De Groot, G., De Haan, J. and Pontrandolfo, P.
(2009), Codes to coordinate supply chains: SMEs
experiences with SA8000, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 117-127.
Crespin-Mazet, F. and Dontenwill, E. (2012), Sustainable
procurement: building legitimacy in the supply network,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 207-217.
Crozier, M. and Thoenig, J-C. (1976), The regulation of
complex organized systems, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 547-570.
David, P.A. (1985), Clio and the economics of QWERTY,
The American Economic Review, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 332-337.
Delmas, M. and Montiel, I. (2009), Greening the supply
chain: when is customer pressure effective?, Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 171-201.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), Producing a systematic
review, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (Eds), The Sage
Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage
Publications, London.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), The relational view:
cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational
competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 660-679.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Agency theory: an assessment and
review, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 57-74.
Ernst, D. and Kim, L. (2002), Global production networks,
knowledge diffusion and local capability formation,
Research Policy, Vol. 31 Nos 8/9, pp. 1417-1429.
Esty, D.C. and Winston, A.S. (2006), Green to Gold: How
Smart Companies use Environmental Strategy to Innovate,
Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage, John Wiley
and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), What is the right supply chain for your
product?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 2,
pp. 105-116.
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010),
Managing supplier sustainability risks in a dynamically
changing environmental sustainable supplier management
in the chemical industry, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 118-130.
Galaskiewicz, J. (2011), Studying supply chains from a social
network perspective, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 4-8.
Gassenheimer, J.B., Hunter, G.L. and Siguaw, J.A. (2007),
An evolving theory of hybrid distribution: taming a hostile
supply network, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36
No. 5, pp. 604-616.
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), Extending
sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 5, pp. 531-543.
Gonzlez, P., Sarkis, J. and Adenso-Daz, B. (2008),
Environmental management system certification and its
influence on corporate practices: evidence from the
automotive industry, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1021-1041.
Grandori, A. and Soda, G. (2006), A relational approach to
organization design, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 151-172.
Granovetter, M. (1985), Economic action and social
structure: the problem of embeddedness, American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Greenpeace (2011), Dirty Laundry: Unveiling the Corporate
Connections to toxic waste pollution in China,
Greenpeace, pp. 1-116, available at: www.greenpeace.org/
international/Global/international/publications/toxics/
Water%202011/dirty-laundry-12pages.pdf (accessed 3
January 2014).
Grimm, J.H., Hofstetter, J.S., Mggler, M. and Peters, N.
(2011), Institutionalizing proactive sustainability
standards in supply chains: which institutional
entrepreneurship capabilities matter?, in Marcus, A.,
Shrivastava, P., Sharma, S. and Pogutz, S. (Eds),
Cross-Sector Leadership for the Green Economy: Integrating
Research and Practice on Sustainable Enterprise, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 177-194.
Grimm, J.H., Hofstetter, J.S. and Sarkis, J. (2014), Critical
factors for sub-supplier management: a sustainable food
supply chains perspective, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 152 No. 1, pp. 159-173.
Gualandris, J., Klassen, R., Vachon, S. and Kalchschmidt, M.
(2013), Building credibility into sustainable supply chains:
towards a conceptual framework, in Proceedings of 20th
European Operations Management Association (EurOMA)
Conference, UCD and TCD Schools of Business, Dublin,
pp. 293-303.
Handfield, R.B. and Nichols, E.L. (1999), Introduction to
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 183, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Harland, C.M., Lamming, R.C., Zheng, J. and Johnsen, T.E.
(2001), A taxonomy of supply networks, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 21-27.
Hartmann, J. and Moeller, S. (2014), Chain liability in
multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for
unsustainable supplier behavior, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 281-294.
Hoejmose, S.U., Grosvold, J. and Millington, A. (2013),
Socially responsible supply chains: power asymmetries and
joint dependence, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 277-291.
Jarillo, J.C. (1988), On strategic networks, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Jiang, R.J. and Bansal, P. (2003), Seeing the need for ISO
14001, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 1047-1067.
Johnston, D.A. and Linton, J.D. (2000), Social networks and
the implementation of environmental technology, IEEE
661
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 465-477.
Kim, J. and Rhee, J. (2012), An empirical study on the
impact of critical success factors on the balanced scorecard
performance in Korean green supply chain management
enterprises, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 2465-2483.
Kim, Y., Choi, T.Y., Yan, T. and Dooley, K. (2011),
Structural investigation of supply networks: a social
network analysis approach, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 194-211.
Koh, S.C.L., Gunasekaran, A. and Tseng, C.S. (2012),
Cross-tier ripple and indirect effect of directives WEEE
and RoHS on greening a supply chain, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1,
pp. 305-317.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998),
Supply chain management: implementation issues and
research opportunities, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Lamming, R., Johnsen, T., Zheng, J. and Harland, C. (2000),
An initial classification of supply networks, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 675-691.
Lee, H., Plambeck, E. and Yatsko, P. (2012a), Incentivizing
Sustainability in Your Chinese Supply Chain, The
European Business Review, March/April, pp. 27-35.
Lee, H., Plambeck, E. and Yatsko, P. (2012b), Embracing
green in China [. . .] with an NGO nudge, Supply Chain
Management Review, May/June, pp. 38-45.
Lee, S. (2008), Drivers for the participation of small and
medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain initiatives,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13
No. 13, pp. 185-198.
Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L., Ji, P. and Feng, L. (2010), The
evolutionary complexity of complex adaptive supply
networks: a simulation and case study, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 310-330.
MacCarthy, B.L. and Jayarathne, P.G.S.A. (2012),
Sustainable collaborative supply networks in the
international clothing industry: a comparative analysis of
two retailers, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 252-268.
Mares, R. (2010), The limits of supply chain responsibility: a
critical analysis of corporate responsibility instruments,
Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 79 No. 2,
pp. 193-244.
Meixell, M.J. and Gargeya, V.B. (2005), Global supply chain
design: a literature review and critique, Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 41
No. 6, pp. 531-550.
Mena, C., Humphries, A. and Choi, T.Y. (2013), Toward a
theory of multi-tier supply chain management, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 58-77.
Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T.E. and Macquet, M. (2012),
Sustainable purchasing and supply management: a
structured literature review of definitions and measures at
the dyad, chain and network levels, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 478-496.
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Mueller, M., dos Santos, V.G. and Seuring, S. (2009), The
contribution of environmental and social standards towards
ensuring legitimacy in supply chain governance, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 509-523.
Pagell, M. and Z. Wu (2009), Building a more complete
theory of sustainable supply chain management using case
studies of 10 exemplars, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 37-56.
Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R.D. and Russo, M.V. (2011),
Efficiency meets accountability: performance implications
of supply chain configuration, control, and capabilities,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 212-223.
Pathak, S.D., Day, J.M., Nair, A., Sawaya, W.J. and
Kristal, M.M. (2007), Complexity and adaptivity in supply
networks: building supply network theory using a complex
adaptive systems perspective, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 547-580.
Peters, N.J., Hofstetter, J.S. and Hoffmann, V.H. (2011),
Institutional entrepreneurship capabilities for
interorganizational sustainable supply chain strategies,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 52-86.
Pilbeam, C., Alvarez, G. and Wilson, H. (2012), The
governance of supply networks: a systematic literature
review, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 358-376.
Plambeck, E. (2012), Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
through operations and supply chain management, Energy
Economics, Vol. 34 (Suppl. 10), pp. S64-S74.
Plambeck, E. and Denend, L. (2011), The greening of
Walmarts supply chain revisited, Supply Chain
Management Review, September/October, pp. 16-23.
Plambeck, E.L., Lee, H.L. and Yatsko, P. (2012), Improving
environmental performance in your Chinese supply chain,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 43-52.
Ponce, E. and B. Prida (2004), La logstica de
aprovisionamientos para la integracin de la cadena de
suministros, Pearson Educacin, Madrid.
Potter, W.J. and Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999), Rethinking
validity and reliability in content analysis, Journal of
Applied Communication Research, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 258-284.
Prado, A.M. (2013), Competition among self-regulatory
institutions: sustainability certifications in the cut-flower
industry, Business Society, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 686-707.
Rao, P. (2002), Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in
South East Asia, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 632-655.
Sarkis, J. (2012), A boundaries and flows perspective of
green supply chain management, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 202-216.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011), An organizational
theoretic review of green supply chain management
literature, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Schneider, L. and Wallenburg, C.M. (2012), Implementing
sustainable sourcing does purchasing need to change?,
662
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 243-257.
Shukla, A.C., Deshmukh, S.G. and Kanda, A. (2009),
Environmentally responsive supply chains: learnings from
the Indian auto sector, Journal of Advances in Management
Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 154-171.
Simpson, D. (2010), Use of supply relationships to recycle
secondary materials, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 227-249.
Simpson, D., Power, D. and Klassen, R. (2012), When one
size does not fill all: a problem of fit rather than failure for
voluntary management standards, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 85-95.
Simpson, D., Power, D. and Samson, D. (2007), Greening
the automotive supply chain: a relationship perspective,
International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 28-48.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2008), Contingency research in
operations management practices, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 697-713.
Surana, A., Kumara, S., Greaves, M. and Raghavan, U.N.
(2005), Supply-chain networks: a complex adaptive
systems perspective, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 43 No. 20, pp. 4235-4265.
Sydow, J. and Windeler, A. (1998), Organizing and
evaluating interfirm networks: a structurationist perspective
on network processes and effectiveness, Organization
science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 265-284.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), Towards a
methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), Extending green
practices across the supply chain, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 795-821.
Walker, H. and Jones, N. (2012), Sustainable supply chain
management across the UK private sector, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 15-28.
Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis 2nd ed., Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Wiengarten, F., Pagell, M. and Fynes, B. (2012), Supply
chain environmental investments in dynamic industries:
comparing investment and performance differences with
static industries, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 541-551.
Wilhelm, M.M. (2011), Managing coopetition through
horizontal supply chain relations: linking dyadic and
network levels of analysis, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 663-676.
Williamson, O.E. (1981), The economics of organization:
the transaction cost approach, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 548-577.
Wittstruck, D. and Teuteberg, F. (2012), Understanding the
success factors of sustainable supply chain management:
empirical evidence from the electrics and electronics
industry, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 141-158.
 Multi-tier sustainable supply chains
Elcio M. Tachizawa and Chee Yew Wong
Wu, Z., Choi, T.Y. and Rungtusanatham, M.J. (2010),
Supplier-supplier relationships in buyer-supplier supplier
triads: implications for supplier performance, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 115-123.
Zaheer, A., Gulati, R. and N. Nohria (2000), Strategic
networks, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 203-215.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), Relationships between
operational practices and performance among early
adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J., Lai, K.H. (2008),
Firm-level correlates of emergent green supply chain
management practices in the Chinese context, Omega,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 577-591.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.H. (2012), Green supply chain
management innovation diffusion and its relationship to
organizational improvement: an ecological modernization
perspective, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 168-185.
Further reading
Gereffi, G. and Lee, J. (2012), Why the world suddenly cares
about global supply chains, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
Khknen, A.K. (2014), The influence of power position on
the depth of collaboration, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Lo, S.M. (2014), Effects of supply chain position on the
motivation and practices of firms going green, International
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
663
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 19 Number 5/6 2014 643663
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 93-114.
Mena, C., Terry, L.A., Williams, A. and Ellram, L. (2014),
Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks: cases in
the UK food sector, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 152 No. 1, pp. 144.
About the authors
Elcio M. Tachizawa is an Assistant Professor at the
Department of Business Administration at University Carlos
III of Madrid. He earned a PhD degree in management from
Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain). He is currently
investigating how firms green their supply chains and adopt
environment-friendly management practices. His work
appears in journals such as the International Journal of
Production Research, the International Journal of Production
Economics, the International Journal of Operations and
Production Management and Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal. Elcio M. Tachizawa is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: elcio.mendonca@uc3m.es
Chee Yew Wong is a Professor of supply chain management
and Director of the Centre for Operations and Supply Chain
Research (COSCR) at Leeds University Business School,
University of Leeds, UK. He earned a PhD in supply chain
management from Aalborg University, Denmark. His research
interests include supply chain integration, supply chain
collaboration, sustainable supply chain and supply chain
innovation. His work appears in journals such as Journal of
Operations Management, International Journal of Production
Economics and Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.